Third time lucky

Barack Obama performed better than Mitt Romney. But no one is likely to care

THE third and final debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, held on October 22nd in Florida on the subject of foreign policy, was not that useful a guide to how the two candidates differ in views of the world. Mr Romney set out to reassure wavering voters that he was not a warmongering heir to George W. Bush, at one point declaring: “We want a peaceful planet.” He succeeded in this, but in the process made his foreign-policy criticisms of the past several months look like so much rhetorical bluster. Which is the real foreign-policy Romney is now thoroughly unclear.

In the debate, the Republican challenger studiously agreed with Mr Obama on practically everything. He concurred that a diplomatic approach based on sanctions was a viable strategy for blocking Iran’s nuclear programme. He grumbled only that sanctions could have been tougher, earlier, and suggested that he would seek to indict the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for incitement to genocide (a tall order, diplomatically and legally).

Mr Romney declared that he had no desire to see American military force used in Syria, tweaking the president only for failing to help rebels unite against the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, and for failing to arm “responsible” insurgents. He unceremoniously ditched his long-standing vow to consult American military commanders before withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 2014. He would bring all troops home then, he vowed, breezily claiming that the training of Afghan forces was proceeding “apace”.

In the second presidential debate, the two men had argued fiercely over the killing of America’s ambassador to Libya, with Mr Romney raising the charge that Mr Obama and his aides had sought to mislead the public by playing down the idea that the murder was a planned terrorist attack, and instead describing it as a spontaneous protest sparked by an anti-Muslim film made in America. That argument had ended in something of a semantic tangle. In the third debate Mr Romney steered clear of the whole tricky business.

Mr Romney did repeat allegations about Mr Obama apologising for America overseas and emboldening enemies with his weakness. Yet he also cunningly attacked the president from the left, arguing that—while drone strikes against Islamic militants were all very well—a comprehensive approach was needed, supporting civil society and gender equality. “We can’t kill our way out of this mess,” Mr Romney said.

He continued his China-bashing, standing by his vow to declare China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. He spelled out that this would allow tariffs to be applied to Chinese imports “where they’re taking jobs”.

An overall stress on avoiding fresh bombs-and-bullets wars was electorally wise. But it also meant Mr Romney ceded in advance any hope of a victory to match his game-changing win in the first debate on October 3rd. Instead, Mr Obama won the third debate, taking the opportunity to paint himself as an experienced commander-in-chief, and aggressively—even derisively—mocking Mr Romney as a flip-flopper, determined to take American foreign policy back decades to the cold war.

If the clash left viewers unclear as to how America’s foreign policy would unfold under a Romney presidency, it was an excellent window into the thinking of both the Obama and Romney campaigns in the closing stages of a dead-heat election. Mr Romney clearly feels that his conservative supporters are locked in place, allowing him to tack to the centre. Mr Obama’s forays into macho point-scoring, on the other hand, suggests a continuing need to fire up a reluctant base.

To a degree that was at times absurd, both men used a discussion nominally about geopolitics to woo vital rustbelt voters and those worried about the economy (the pair tussled over car-industry bail-outs, outsourcing, optimal class sizes in schools and the small-business development rate in Massachusetts). They competed for the attention of undecided women voters, vying to cast matters of war and peace in emotional terms.

Mr Obama scored the only real zinger of the night. Punching back at Mr Romney’s complaint that the American navy had fewer ships than at any time since 1917, the president retorted that America had “fewer horses and bayonets” too. On the fine detail of defence spending Mr Obama was rather shifty, however, denying any White House involvement in a threatened “sequester” that would impose drastic, automatic cuts on defence and other domestic spending if a deal cannot be agreed with Congress on future tax and spending. The sequester “will not happen”, Mr Obama said in the debate, though that decision is not in his gift: the sequester is an automatic sanction jointly agreed by Democrats and Republicans in a giant game of fiscal chicken.

The debate was most notable for its insularity, with both candidates constantly attempting to drag world affairs back to the domestic. Mr Romney decried the budget deficit as a strategic weakness. Even Osama bin Laden’s killing got the treatment, with Mr Obama explaining that it had brought “closure” to Peyton, a young woman he had met whose father was killed in the September 11th 2001 attacks.

Foreign-policy debates are generally a sideshow. In war-weary America, geopolitics are nothing but a distraction this year. But whoever wins on November 6th will still find the world’s problems piling up in his in-tray.